It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Observable Evidence: Evolution vs. Creationism

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Wow I would love to see that take place! Where are their nobel prizes?




posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jheated5

Wow I would love to see that take place! Where are their nobel prizes?
They were too early for that.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Your misunderstanding within the Theory of Evolution is actually quite common. Science isn't entirely bound by personal observation. We don't need to see a planet evolve in order to form an accurate theory on how it does, for example. We see evidence through a number of observations in the galaxy and solar system that all lead to a cause for their formation. We see patterns throughout other celestial bodies that point in a specific direction, and we can verify specific traits here on earth in our observations of those celestial bodies. From all these other external sources, we can accurately draw a theory on how celestial bodies come to be.

Conversely, we can draw similar conclusions within our Theory of Evolution. The difference is that the theory of Evolution has much more evidence at our hands and in observable instances than that of almost any other branch of science. We can draw our conclusions through instances within the same theory, in this case.

Here's how evolution works, in the very basic form. Small mutations occur in every individual, of every species, through reproduction. A human genome accumulates around 1-2 new mutations per generation because each full generation involves a number of cell divisions to generate gametes. (you can read the peer reviewed scientific article on Rates of Spontaneous Mutation here if you'd like). Mutation rates vary from species to species and are typically given for a specific class of mutation, for instance point mutations, small or large scale insertions or deletions. Nevertheless, this mutations accumulate over time leading successive generations further and further away from their ancestors - at a genetic scale. This process is called "Genetic Drift".

Once a species diverges enough from their genetic ancestors, we can classify them as something new; a Subspecies or a new species all together.

Here's a dramatically uncomplicated analogy to the whole concept: Time, as we know it at a basic level, is made up of seconds, minutes, and hours. Think of a second as those small mutations that occur in every generation. Those seconds (mutations) build up and up until a minute is formed (a new species). That same process of seconds building upon one another continue to grow forming more minutes, and in time an Hour is formed (a new family). That Hour (family) is still made up of seconds (mutations) that that very first minute had, however. Yet, an hour was formed in the same way a minute is formed. The difference is only that there is a greater number of accumulated seconds.

The same concept is what evolution takes advantage of in the production of new species, families, and the like.
Here's a dramatically uncomplicated analogy to the whole concept: Time, as we know it at a basic level, is made up of seconds, minutes, and hours. Think of a second as those small mutations that occur in every generation. Those seconds (mutations) build up and up until a minute is formed (a new species). That same process of seconds building upon one another continue to grow forming more minutes, and in time an Hour is formed (a new family). That Hour (family) is still made up of seconds (mutations) that that very first minute had, however. Yet, an hour was formed in the same way a minute is formed. The difference is only that there is a greater number of accumulated seconds.

The same concept is what evolution takes advantage of in the production of new species, families, and the like.


We have observed speciation numerous times. Here are a few examples; you can read further into the matter at this link (all instances are sourced from peer reviewed scientific publications) Source:

~ Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)



While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.


~ Stephanomeira malheurensis



Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.


~ Drosophila paulistorum



Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).


I can go on, but there's more in the source I provided. Now, the reason why I'm giving you these examples is because of the following: The same evolutionary process of Genetic Drift through variation within reproduction is ever constant. This means that we can observe genetic drift through populations, we can observe speciation caused by genetic drift, and we can respectively extrapolate that genetic drift to view how a new family of life can occur through this same process.

In the end, we don't need to view a biological family diverge into another one to know it exist. All evidence points towards it, and nothing has yet to show this process does not occur. We continue to see evidence for this in the fossil record.

Does this all make sense?
edit on 17/5/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I'll bite... here is your new race... in between... or you can call it lost link...



All evolutionary scientist will tel you the same thing, when you ask if there is example of changes between 2 species. Reason is simple, you try to view something that takes millions of years to occur. Sure we have links how it went, but when you are talking about main way of observing it, through fossils, you have to remember that very small amount of species get fossilized to something useful for science. Most of those organisms turn into what we call today fossil fuels...


Please, also note that new science field called genetics actually provided proof for evolution, and for example today we know that dogs are not descendants from wolves, but that both dog and wolves are descendants from another another species, ancestors to both.

www.livescience.com...


edit on 17-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I'd like to also direct you to this very specific field of biology, it's the field of taxonomy, classifying differences between species, and differences within' species. Basically if you find a chart large enough or did enough research and digging you can see the literal 'transformation' from when taxonomy was first detailed in writing.
A good example is the modern day cow, and bull. Their most recent common ancestor was the aurochs, an ancient bull that was used for many different tasks that humans wanted it to do, but we selectively bred it, and basically killed it off for sport as well, the closest thing you will find to is the modern day bull, most known as the bulls you see in the Spanish tradition of the running of the bulls.
If you can follow taxonomists charts back to the last surviving aurochs you can see the 'changes' all the way to Bessie the dairy cow.

en.wikipedia.org...(biology)

Also, the simplest way to find an answer to your original question is to simply google or search 'instances of observed speciation' and you will find a large variety of what you are looking for.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp




Also, the simplest way to find an answer to your original question is to simply google or search 'instances of observed speciation' and you will find a large variety of what you are looking for.

The OP said nothing about speciation.
The OP asked for evidence of a change in "kind."



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: strongfp




Also, the simplest way to find an answer to your original question is to simply google or search 'instances of observed speciation' and you will find a large variety of what you are looking for.

The OP said nothing about speciation.
The OP asked for evidence of a change in "kind."


Speciation is the change of 'kind'.

en.wikipedia.org...

You cannot have an instant change of a kind to another without a gradual process. When you turn 18 you are technically an adult, but you won't act like you are 55 years old of wisdom. It's not instant, the OP needs to really do more research before coming here and asking such a brazen question that goes so deep only people who devote their career to it can describe it. But I simply directed him to the a very specific and very well documented field of science, which shows the gradual changes over time.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
The OP said nothing about speciation.
The OP asked for evidence of a change in "kind."


Sure thing... but even all evidence of our genetic evolution will not be sufficient for OP... but now while we are talking about it... I just like to ask for simple thing - can OP show me evidence, I like to see God create single specie.

This reminds me of those geniuses teaching kids to ask 'where you there to see evolution', who in their wisdom never figured out that the same can be asked for their little belief... where they there...



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Let's keep it simple. you can see a bird is a bird, a fish is a fish, a bacterium is a bacterium, etc. Is there evidence of a fish begetting something that is no longer a fish, or a bird begetting something that is no longer a bird?



So does that make a dolphin or a whale a fish? How about a bat a bird?



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

Bats are birds, according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

All animals were also meant to be herbivores according to the Bible.

Just interesting to mention.


edit on 5-17-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Cypress
All animals were also meant to be herbivores according to the Bible.


That must have been of great comfort to all the Christians in Rome that were sentenced to ad bestias (to the beasts).

Edit: Maybe that's why animals being herbivores was put into the Bible to begin with... because if it was written down in an infallible book, it must be true... thus saving any future Christians from the beasts.

I think I'm starting to get this Faith stuff! If I believe strongly enough it must be true!... Urgh... Ouch... Think I just tried to believe so hard I burst a blood vessel in my eye!
edit on 18-5-2015 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
There is no proof of evolved creatures. There are merely fossils and bones of animals that look similar without flesh on them so people claim they are part of an evolution. All have gaps. I went to the Balboa Park evolution of man and was sadly disappointed. I love to learn about science and all this, but when evolution feels more like believing with blind faith I tend to become skeptical. Especially when everything goes back to what started it all. There has to be an intelligent designer of some sort. Because living matter can not spawn from non-living matter. That is a scientific fact. So it takes more blind faith to believe in it all than what's claimed. We tend to overthink everything as humans, especially when we don't want to believe in something greater than ourselves.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Creation and evolution work together. Whatever the point of the Universe and its creation will always be beyond the intelligence of man.

These arguments only seem to serve one's ego, thinking you know something when you really know nothing at all. Worry more about your own life, things close to you and how to make it better rather than trying to penetrate the impenetrable.


edit on 18-5-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Why don't you start off by defining what a "kind" is according to science.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TheCretinHop



There has to be an intelligent designer of some sort. Because living matter can not spawn from non-living matter. That is a scientific fact.


A scientific fact you say? Could you source that claim?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Creation and evolution work together. Whatever the point of the Universe and its creation will always be beyond the intelligence of man.

These arguments only seem to serve one's ego, thinking you know something when you really know nothing at all. Worry more about your own life, things close to you and how to make it better rather than trying to penetrate the impenetrable.



Yeah ignorance is bliss.......



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Creation and evolution work together. Whatever the point of the Universe and its creation will always be beyond the intelligence of man.

These arguments only seem to serve one's ego, thinking you know something when you really know nothing at all. Worry more about your own life, things close to you and how to make it better rather than trying to penetrate the impenetrable.



Yeah ignorance is bliss.......
I am glad you are content.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Creation and evolution work together. Whatever the point of the Universe and its creation will always be beyond the intelligence of man.

These arguments only seem to serve one's ego, thinking you know something when you really know nothing at all. Worry more about your own life, things close to you and how to make it better rather than trying to penetrate the impenetrable.



Yeah ignorance is bliss.......
I am glad you are content.


Never....but it seemed asthough you were promoting ignorance in your post......you certainly weren't promoting an inquisitive mindset.
edit on 18-5-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
There is no proof of evolved creatures.

Really?? It seems that all scientist from that field kind of disagree with you...


originally posted by: TheCretinHop
There are merely fossils and bones of animals that look similar without flesh on them so people claim they are part of an evolution.

They don't just look similar, but from their fossils we are able to see changes through time. Also to predict what kind of fossils can be in between 2 close relative species. Also remember, DNA is also supporting all of this and we can for instance calculate when 2 different species had the same ancestors, for example dogs and wolf, who share the same ancestor, but are 2 different species.


originally posted by: TheCretinHop
All have gaps. I went to the Balboa Park evolution of man and was sadly disappointed.

What do you expect... do you know how small fraction of remains gets fossilized?? That is where DNA and genetics help.




originally posted by: TheCretinHop
I love to learn about science and all this, but when evolution feels more like believing with blind faith I tend to become skeptical.

From this reply, I doubt this... call it love... It is OK to be skeptical, but for a good cause and not when all evidence points to evolution to be correct and scientifically proven theory.



originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Especially when everything goes back to what started it all.

Evolution has nothing to do with 'what started it all', but with changes once it has started.



originally posted by: TheCretinHop
There has to be an intelligent designer of some sort.

No, it does not. There is no evidence to support design, specially not intelligent. If there was design, then it is Stupid Design.


originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Because living matter can not spawn from non-living matter. That is a scientific fact.

Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. True, abiogenesis hypothesis is not YET proven, but wonder, what will you say once it gets proven. We are getting closer and closer to it. Part where this gets interesting, if proven, it will be clear sign that life in cosmos is spread everywhere, even around young stars... www.abovetopsecret.com...



originally posted by: TheCretinHop
So it takes more blind faith to believe in it all than what's claimed. We tend to overthink everything as humans, especially when we don't want to believe in something greater than ourselves.

No faith involved when we work with facts... But in your case faith is incompatible with what facts show... and religion tends to do that... disregard facts in order to preserve belief. Here we have whole topic about that...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Creation and evolution work together. Whatever the point of the Universe and its creation will always be beyond the intelligence of man.

These arguments only seem to serve one's ego, thinking you know something when you really know nothing at all. Worry more about your own life, things close to you and how to make it better rather than trying to penetrate the impenetrable.



really?..."thinking you know something when you really know nothing at all" seems to serve YOUR ego...especially from the sentences directly above........"creation and evolution work together", where and how can you prove that?....."will always be beyond the intelligence of man"....."always" is a very, very long time, and how would you be so absolute about that?...gee, let me think, you have faith......end of discussion, no more can be said, you win.......
by the way, this is what a conversation always boils down to when the bible thumpers come to my door, which I actively engage, sometimes for 20 to 25 minutes, until they simply leave after saying....."well, one just has to have faith"




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join